A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by acts of corruption and fraud. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, and re-assigned. The terms "rubber room" and "ATR" mean that you or any person has been targeted for removal from your job. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

At 3020-a arbitration in New York City, the Department of Education tries cases with vengeance and bad faith. When someone succeeds in trumping their deck of cards, say with subpoenas and excellent testimony by witnesses who work for the Department but want to tell the truth, the Department yells "foul".

The attorneys at the Gotcha Squad are now telling principals to stop anyone in the school building who is subpoenaed to appear for a Respondent and testify that if they do appear at the arbitration they will be docked a day's pay.

So, please give this awesome decision below by the United States Supreme Court to everyone put into that position. TRUTH MUST BE TOLD WITHOUT FEAR.

Betsy Combier

Public Worker Testimony Is Protected, Justices Rule
By ADAM LIPTAK, JUNE 19, 2014LINK

WASHINGTON — The First Amendment protects government employees from retaliation for giving truthful testimony that was not part of their job responsibilities, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The case involved Edward R. Lane, a former director of a youth program at a public community college in Alabama, who was fired after giving trial testimony in a public corruption trial.

“It would be antithetical to our jurisprudence,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court, “to conclude that the very kind of speech necessary to prosecute corruption by public officials — speech by public employees regarding information learned through their employment — may never form the basis for a First Amendment retaliation claim.”
Judge Sonia Sotomayor

“Such a rule,” she added, “would place public employees who witness corruption in an impossible position, torn between the obligation to testify truthfully and the desire to avoid retaliation and keep their jobs.”

Mr. Lane had discovered that a state legislator, Suzanne Schmitz, was on his program’s payroll, collecting $177,000, though she performed virtually no work. Mr. Lane fired her, and she vowed to get him back.

A federal grand jury indicted Ms. Schmitz on corruption charges. Mr. Lane, under subpoena, testified about what he had learned. Ms. Schmitz was convicted, sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay back the money.

Mr. Lane was nonetheless fired in 2009, and he sued the president of the college, Steve Franks, saying that his termination was retaliation for his testimony and a violation of his First Amendment rights. Mr. Franks said he let Mr. Lane go for financial reasons unrelated to his testimony.

The federal appeals court in Atlanta said it was unnecessary to decide who was right because public employees have no First Amendment protections for statements they make as part of their official duties.

Since “the record fails to establish that Lane testified as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” the appeals court said in an unsigned opinion, “he cannot state a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment.”

Justice Sotomayor said the appeals court was wrong on both points: Mr. Lane had testified as a citizen and his testimony was on a matter of public concern.

“Sworn testimony in judicial proceedings,” she wrote, “is a quintessential example of speech as a citizen for a simple reason: Anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to tell the truth.”

“That is so,” she added, “even when the testimony relates to his public employment or concerns information learned during that employment.”

Justice Sotomayor also had little difficulty in determining that Mr. Lane’s testimony — about “corruption in a public program and misuse of state funds” — was on a matter of public concern.

Thursday’s decision in Lane v. Franks, No. 13-483, clarified the scope of the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which cut back on First Amendment protections for public employees and ruled that a prosecutor’s internal memorandum prepared as part of his job was unprotected.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence signed by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said Thursday’s decision did not address testimony from, say, police officers and crime lab analysts for whom court appearances are “a routine and critical part of their employment duties.”

While Mr. Lane established an important legal principle, he will not benefit from it. In the second part of her opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that Mr. Franks, the official who fired him, was protected by qualified immunity.

Does the First Amendment permit the government to retaliate against a public employee for sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and was not a part of the employee’s ordinary work duties?
Does qualified immunity preclude a claim for damages in this action?
ORAL ARGUMENT:
April 28, 2014
COURT BELOW:United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Lane is the former director of the Community Intensive Training for Youth Program (“CITY”) at Central Alabama Community College (“CACC”); Steve Franks is the former president of CACC. As director of CITY, Lane conducted an audit and discovered that state representative Susan Schmitz was on CITY’s payroll, but had not come to work at the office or performed any work outside the office for CITY. Lane terminated Schmitz’s employment after she refused to report to work. After Schmitz’s termination at CITY, the FBI investigated her for mail fraud and fraud concerning a program receiving federal funds. Lane was subpoenaed and testified at both of Schmitz’s criminal trials. Lane testified that Schmitz had not been reporting to work at CITY, and was only receiving paychecks. Following Schmitz’s criminal trials, Franks terminated Lane. Lane sued Franks in his official and individual capacities, alleging that Franks violated Lane’s First Amendment rights by terminating Lane in retaliation for testifying against Schmitz. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that because Lane’s speech was made in his official capacity as CITY’s director, he failed to state a claim for retaliation. The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify the scope of the First Amendment as it relates to protecting testifying public employees from retaliation by their employers.
QUESTIONS AS FRAMED FOR THE COURT BY THE PARTIES:

Is the government categorically free under the First Amendment to retaliate against a public employee for truthful sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities?
Does qualified immunity preclude a claim for damages in such an action?top

FACTS
Petitioner Edward Lane is the previous Director of the Community Intensive Training for Youth Program (“CITY”) at Central Alabama Community College (“CACC”), and Respondent Steve Franks is the former president of CACC. In 2006, Lane accepted a probationary position as director of CITY, and, as part of his duties, Lane began an audit of CITY’s finances. While conducting this audit Lane discovered that state representative Suzanne Schmitz was on CITY’s payroll, but had not come to work nor performed any work for the program. Lane was warned by CACC’s former president and lawyer that terminating Schmitz’s employment would negatively affect Lane and CACC. After Schmitz refused to report to work, Lane terminated Schmitz’s employment with CITY. Schmitz then sued, seeking to get her job back. Schmitz also told another CITY employee that she would “get [Lane] back” for terminating her. Schmitz went on to say that if Lane ever requested money from the state legislature Schmitz would tell him “you’re fired.”
Following Schmitz’s termination at CITY, the FBI began investigating Schmitz for mail fraud and fraud regarding a different federally funded program. Lane was subpoenaedand testified at Schmitz’s August 2008 federal criminal trial. Lane testified that Schmitz had not been reporting to work at CITY. Lane also testified that he had several phone conversations with Schmitz where he inquired about Schmitz’s work duties, and that he requested that she start reporting to work daily at CITY’s Huntsville office. Schmitz responded that she had gotten her job through her connections with the Alabama Education Association. In writing, Schmitz responded to Lane’s request by stating she would like to “continue to serve the CITY program in the same manner as [she had] in the past.” In February 2009, Lane testified to all of these facts again at Schmitz’s second criminal trial.
As a result of large budget cuts in 2008, Lane and Franks discussed the possibility of laying off all probationary employees. Franks sent termination letters to Lane and twenty-nine CITY employees, all of whom had served less than three years at CITY. In the following days Franks rescinded all of the terminations except for Lane and one other employee. Franks stated that he did this because he discovered that many CITY employees were not actually probationary.
Lane sued Franks in his official capacity as CACC president and in his individual capacity, alleging that Franks terminated Lane as retaliation for testifying against Schmitz, thereby violating Lane’s First Amendment rights. The district court granted Frank’s motion forsummary judgment, concluding that because Lane’s speech was made in his official capacity as CITY’s director, Lane did not establish a prima facie case for a retaliation claim.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine two questions. First, whether under the First Amendment, the government can retaliate against a public employee for testimony that was compelled by subpoena and not part of the employee’s regular job responsibilities. Second, whether qualified immunity precludes a claim for damages in an action such as this. top
DISCUSSION
FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
As amici curiae in support of Petitioner Lane, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (“ACLU”) argue that a witness who gives sworn testimony at a judicial proceeding is always speaking as a “citizen” on a “matter of public concern,” and therefore should be protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU argues that all sworn statements seek to advance the truth and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Therefore, the ACLU asserts, a public employee’s sworn statement in a judicial processing is a matter of public concern just the same as any citizen. Additionally, the ACLU contends that a case-by-case review of a witness’s testimony is unnecessary because of the inherent importance of truthful testimony in the judicial system. The ACLU argues that a testifying witness should only be concerned with telling the truth, and not whether their testimony will anger their boss. Accordingly, the ACLU would have the Court establish a bright-line rule protecting all sworn statements under the First Amendment.
Respondent Burrow, acting President of the CACC, argues that the Court should not adopt a rule that all testimony counts as citizen speech touching on matters of public concern.Burrow contends that employees who speak in their official capacity cannot be considered to be speaking as citizens because the government is paying them for their speech.Burrow argues that for many government employees, testifying is a routine part of their job. Additionally, Burrow asserts that other employees are reasonably expected to promote their employer’s official position while testifying. Burrow states that “a governor’s chief of staff, the warden of a prison, the head of a state agency” are all examples of government employees that the government is warranted to replace if they are unable to promote the official government position while testifying. Burrow contends that just like private employers, government employers must be able to ensure that their employees testify accurately about the government’s position.
PUBLIC POLICY INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
In support of Lane, the First Amendment Coalition argues that to encourage truthful testimony, the Court should recognize the longstanding public policy that in-court testimony must be specially protected against civil claims. The Coalition contends that historically, testifying witnesses have been immune from damages suits and that this immunity remains necessary today. The Coalition further contends that the foremost goal of the judicial system is to reach the truth, and that individual damages claims will only obstruct this goal. Specifically, the Coalition asserts that testifying witnesses could be persuaded to alter their testimony for fear of facing liability. The ACLU also contends that sworn statements must have absolute protection from civil liability to accord with the First Amendment. .
Both Petitioner and Respondent agree that Lane has qualified immunity as a testifying witness. However, with respect to Franks’ liability for terminating Lane, Lane argues that qualified immunity does not protect Franks from liability because his conduct violated a clearly established right under the First Amendment. Lane contends that Franks could not have reasonably believed that he was acting in accordance with the law in the Eleventh Circuit when he terminated Lane.
Burrow counters that when Lane was terminated, there was no clear rule in the Eleventh Circuit that the First Amendment protected all government employees’ testimony concerning work-related matters; therefore, Burrow asserts that Franks has qualified immunity. Furthermore, Burrow contends that a qualified immunity defense should not require state officials to predict changes in federal law. Burrow contends that a bright-line rule which allows an officer to follow the law of their circuit, in spite of how it may differ from other precedents, would allow suits like this one to be resolved much earlier. Burrow asserts that the main reason behind the immunity doctrine is to ensure that unviable claims against government officials are resolved early in the litigation process.top
ANALYSIS
The Eleventh Circuit held that Lane’s testimony was made in his capacity as a government employee and therefore was not protected under the First Amendment. Both Petitioner Lane and Respondent Burrow seek reversal of this determination and argue that Lane gave testimony in his capacity as a concerned citizen on a matter of public concern and therefore warrants First Amendment protection. However, the parties disagree about how to determine who was speaking as a citizen and whether the matter was of public concern.Additionally, Lane believes that Franks is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is not available when an official violates a clearly established right—the right to testify— whereas Burrow argues that qualified immunity exists here and in all cases where government officers’ actions were consistent with governing circuit law.
THE SCOPE OF PROTECTED SPEECH FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Both parties agree that the Court should follow its precedent set forth in Garcetti v. Caballos. In Garcetti, the Courtheld that so long as employees are speaking as a citizen about a matter of public concern, employers can only impose speech restrictions that are necessary for the employers to operate efficiently and effectively.
Lane argues that he gave his testimony as a citizen, not as an employee of the State. He contends that he was subpoenaed in his individual capacity as a fact witness and not under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), under which the subpoena is served on an organization who then designates the witness. Lane maintains that he—as an individual—had to decide how to respond to the subpoena, and if he had lied or failed to comply, he alone would have borne the repercussions. Moreover, when Lane testified at Schmitz’s second trial, he had already been terminated from his directorial position.
Lane argues that his testimony is protected by the First Amendment because it relates to a matter of public concern—as shown by the content, form, and context of his testimony.Lane points to Connick v. Myers, where the court recognized that speech giving the public information to evaluate the performance of an elected official is of public concern, as is speech exposing a breach of the public trust. Lane argues that his speech fell into the public-concern category because it revealed Schmitz’s corruption and drew attention to the broader public interest of exposing corruption. Moreover, Lane contends that when public employees, and all citizens, respond to subpoenas, they are performing a duty to society and that testimony vindicates a core First Amendment interest.
Respondent Burrow concedes that the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that Lane’s speech was entirely unprotected. Burrow contends that the Eleventh Circuit did not follow the practical analysis required by Garcetti, but instead applied an overly broad scope and held that an employee’s testimony will not be protected if it involves facts learned on the job.Burrow posits that the Eleventh Circuit’s faulty ruling arose from a misunderstanding about the facts of the Garcetti case. In Garcetti, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not protect the employee’s speech because the employee was paid to write the speech which he then claimed to be protected. However, other Supreme Court holdings show that employee speech does not lose protection simply because it concerns the subject matter of employment. Therefore, the fact-based analysis called for by Garcettishows that Lane’s speech was not made pursuant to his official duties. Additionally, Burrow agrees that although what constitutes a public concern is less than clear, Lane’s testimony obviously fell within the scope as it was integral to exposing and proving Schmitz’s corrupt scheme.
Although, Burrow agrees that Lane testified as a citizen on a matter of public concern, Burrow expresses unease that the Court may follow other circuits and develop a per serule treating all subpoenaed testimony by a government employee as a matter of public concern. Instead of a per se rule, Burrow argues that courts should use the same practical analysis employed in assessing other kinds of employee speech. Although some circuits have held that all speech compelled by a subpoena is necessarily speech by a citizen, Burrow contends that the First Amendment should not prevent retaliation in cases where the government is paying employees who may testify as a routine part of their official duties, such as a police officer testifying about traffic stops, and crime scene technicians testifying about processing evidence. If questions arose as to a testifying police officer’s credibility, the mere fact that he was testifying should not prohibit supervisors from evaluating his performance.
Burrow also claims that Lane’s argument that subpoenaed testimony is vindicating a core First Amendment interest would turn the inquiry into a per se rule. Burrow contends that society’s interest in candid testimony should not automatically make all testimony into a matter of public concern. Rather, Burrow states that courts must evaluate both the content and forum to determine whether the speech regards a matter of public concern.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Burrow argues that even though Lane spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern, qualified immunity bars a suit against Franks. Burrow argues that under Supreme Court precedent, qualified immunity shields officials from suits for money damages unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.
Burrow contends that it was not “clearly established” that employees’ testimony about facts relating to employment was protected when Franks fired Lane. Burrow claims that the Eleventh Circuit has consistently followed the rule that involuntary testimony about an employee’s job is broadly unprotected by the First Amendment. For example, Burrow citesMorris v. Crow, where the Eleventh Circuit did not allow a police officer’s testimony to qualify for First Amendment protection because the officer was not speaking as a citizen.In Morris, the officer testified that another officer violated office policy when responding to an emergency. Although Burrow admits that the facts of Morris are distinguishable, Burrow claims that its holding—that involuntary testimony regarding an employee’s job is generally unprotected—dictated the result in this case at the circuit-court level.
Lane argues that in determining qualified immunity the appropriate question is whether Franks could have reasonably believed that he was permitted to retaliate against an employee assisting in a federal corruption prosecution. Lane contends that Eleventh Circuit precedent supported Lane on this question at the time he was terminated. Lane points to Martinez v. City of Opa-Locka, where the Eleventh Circuit found an employee of the city’s purchasing department was retaliated against after she testified that a superior had violated bid procedures to purchase furniture for City Hall. In Martinez, the Eleventh Circuit recognized the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim and denied the defendant qualified immunity. Lane contends that because the facts of Martinez align with this case more closely than those of Morris, and because of the virtual unanimity of the other circuits, no public official in 2009 could reasonably believe that retaliation was constitutional in this case.top
CONCLUSION
This case will significantly impact the development of First Amendment law in the area of retaliation claims. Both parties agree that the determination below should be overturned and that Lane’s speech should be given First Amendment protections because he gave his testimony as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. But Burrow expresses concern about the dangers of creating a per se rule treating all subpoenaed testimony from a public employee as a matter of public concern. She thus argues for a fact-based, case-by-case inquiry into the content and context of the testimony at issue. Lane argues that Franks does not have immunity because he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established by case law in the Eleventh Circuit at the time of Lane’s termination, to which Burrow responds that Eleventh Circuit precedent leaves Lane’s testimony unprotected under the First Amendment or— at the very least—that Franks had not violated clearly established circuit law. Burrow contends that government officials should always be able to follow the law of their circuit without having to predict any future rulings by the Court. The outcome of this case will delineate the standard for assessing whether a public employee’s testimony is protected under the First Amendment, as well as a standard for determining when a public employee has qualified immunity.
WRITTEN BY:Rose Nimkiins PetoskeyKatherine Hinderlie
EDITED BY:Stephen Wirth
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Hawkins insisted her refusal to allow the song has nothing to do with patriotism.

In an email to The Post, Hawkins said the song was not on a list the teachers had submitted.

The kids will perform several other tunes during the ceremony, including “You Are My Sunshine” and “What a Miracle Am I.”

“Teachers were reminded in meetings and in communiques not to add or remove from what was already approved weeks ago,” Hawkins wrote.

Hawkins also nixed the little flags, referring to them as unapproved “materials.”

Kids stand for the Pledge of Allegiance each morning at PS 90. But in September, Hawkins eliminated the daily singing of “America the Beautiful.”

In 2012, when Hawkins silenced “God Bless the USA,” the Lee Greenwood ballad also known as “Proud to Be an American,” she reportedly told teachers it might “offend other cultures.” PS 90 is full of immigrants from Mexico, Pakistan, India, Russia and elsewhere.

She later told Department of Education higher-ups that the lyrics were “too grown up” for 5-year-olds, though she left Justin Bieber’s flirty “Baby” on the program. The DOE had her yank that one, too.

Last week, a pre-K mom who learned about the slashed song was upset.

“I’m angry about it,” she said. “It’s the American flag. What’s wrong with that? So many soldiers died for it. Why is she against the red, white and blue?”

Her child sings the lyrics at home, the mom said. She called the waving of flags “wonderful.”

Teachers suggested kids could wave flags from other countries as well, but Hawkins dismissed that idea, they said.

Instead, Hawkins and an assistant principal asked the teachers, “Why can’t you do something more modern?”

As of Friday, the 70th anniversary of D-Day, no new song was approved. The assistant principal said the children would enter the auditorium without singing anything.

In the vast ocean of stories sweeping the internet this is not the worst that a Principal has done. But the tampering with surveys, votes and grades is so rampant in NYC schools, I thought Sue's story was worth posting.

A Coney Island school principal who caused a furor by refusing to let kindergartners sing “God Bless the USA” at their graduation is in hot water again — this time for allegedly having an aide tamper with parent questionnaires.

Two staffers at PS 90, the Edna Cohen School, say Greta Hawkins instructed an aide to open envelopes holding Department of Education parent surveys and fill in “bubbles” with a pencil.

Greta Hawkins

“She was ripping open white envelopes that were sealed and bubbling in answers to the survey,” a teacher told The Post.

The DOE prohibits any breach of the confidentiality of the surveys, which rate schools on “academic expectations,” “safety and respect,” “communication” and “engagement.” They help city officials gauge a school’s environment and principal performance.

Last school year, PS 90 received average and below-average scores on its survey, with 76 percent of parents participating. In its last progress report, for 2011-12, PS 90 earned an overall grade of “B” but an “F” in “school environment” based mainly on parent and teacher surveys.

At parent-teacher conferences Tuesday, parents picking up their children’s report cards were also handed surveys. Hawkins said parents who filled them out on the spot would get two “No Homework Passes” for their kids.

When a parent picked up a report card Wednesday, a source said, Hawkins directed a staffer to give her a survey and tell her “the school has no drugs or gangs.” Last year parents cited concerns about both issues.

Parents get a green envelope containing the survey and a white first-class-postage-paid envelope addressed to a processing center in St. Paul, Minn. Parents are supposed to seal their completed surveys in the white envelope, then mail them or leave them for the school to mail.

Two school staffers said that while Hawkins ran a conference Wednesday, they saw the school’s community assistant, Tiffany Starks, in the main office with a box of survey envelopes. Both staffers said they saw Starks open green and white envelopes.

“She broke open the seal of a first-class envelope and altered surveys completed by the parents,” the teacher said.

A video taken by the teacher shows Starks removing a survey and discarding the green envelope. The two staffers do not know what Starks did with the uncompleted surveys.

Asked why she was marking completed surveys, she replied, “I’m just making sure they did it right,” and said she was “fixing” bubbles not filled in properly, according to the second staffer.

Starks admitted she felt uncomfortable with the task but said, “She [Hawkins] told me to do it, so that’s what I’m doing,” according to the staffer.

“We have a no-bullying rule for the schools,” parent Heidi Rotondo told Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott at a District 21 Community Education Council town hall meeting on Jan. 11. “So what are you doing about the principal at PS 90 who’s doing the bullying?”Walcott dodged the question, insisting he couldn’t deal with “personnel specifics publicly.”Rotondo was one of more than two dozen parents from Coney Island’s PS 90 who turned out at the town hall meeting to complain about Greta Hawkins, the principal since September 2009 and a New York City Leadership Academy grad. Parents and teachers want her gone. Organized as the Action Committee to Save PS 90, the parents produced a two-sided flier for the meeting that contained a long list of accusations against Hawkins, including:

threatening to report the parents of misbehaving students to the Administration for Children’s Services;

chronically underreporting safety incidents; and

refusing to account for $3,600 of Title I parent involvement funds from the previous school year.

Numerous special education complaints filed with the UFT over the past two years document how Hawkins allegedly assigned paraprofessionals to do office work or run errands while students went without special education services, thus violating Individualized Education Program mandates. (The network and the principal responded by making corrections.) Hawkins also has been criticized by staff and parents for closing the school’s library and selling off its books (at 25 cents per book); shutting the school’s state-of the art computer lab, which was funded by local Councilman Domenic Recchia; and ending instrumental music instruction at a school ironically named the School of Performing Arts.

The Department of Education reprimanded Hawkins and sent her to sensitivity training after investgators from the DOE’s Office of Equal Opportunity found that Hawkins made offensive racial remarks at a June 2010 faculty meeting. Nine UFT members who attended the mandatory meeting filed a complaint.Principal Greta Hawkins (above, left) has drawn the ire of parents and teachers.In their Sept. 8, 2010, findings, the investigators concluded: “By deliberately differentiating herself, a black Jehovah’s Witness, and the previous principal, white and Jewish, in the context of a mandatory staff meeting addressing rumors and discussing hiring and upcoming changes in the school, Principal Hawkins offended multiple staff members.”

Chapter Leader Vicky Giasemis said that many of the teachers who filed the complaint — even though they were not identified by the Office of Equal Opportunity — were removed from their positions.

Hawkins’ critics say she took a healthy school culture and made it toxic.

“She’s not a boss who pushes the staff to work better. She’s a boss who lies to end your career,” said one longtime school veteran, who asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Hawkins has since singled out the chapter leader for abuse. Giasemis had what she described as a “spotless record” for her first 12 years of teaching. That ended in 2010, when she became the school’s union representative, she said.

“Immediately the retaliation started,” Giasemis said. “All of a sudden I became incompetent and abusive.” Hawkins wrote her up multiple times and gave her a U-rating.

Among the formal grievances pending against Hawkins, District 21 Representative Judy Gerowitz said, was one brought by 13 members accusing Hawkins of micromanaging the format of the lesson plans.

In a case in point, Hawkins’ Jan. 30 school newsletter The Monday Message contained “a fourth reminder” in which she spelled out in minute detail what lesson plans must include. Gerowitz noted that the UFT contract stipulates that supervisors cannot require a particular lesson plan format unless a teacher received a U-rating, or has been given a formal warning of a possible U-rating.

The chapter leader herself has filed grievances charging Hawkins with disciplining her for carrying out union duties.

Still, Giasemis doesn’t heap all the blame on Hawkins.

“It’s the DOE’s doing,” said Giasemis. “They want to break the schools one school at a time.”

Nearly all of Calderon-Melendez’s compensation during the covered period came, directly or indirectly, from taxpayer-funded charter schools.

As a result of the plea, he admitted to an E felony for repeated failure to file his NY tax returns and will have to pay back all of the taxes he owes, which amounts to over $200,000 including penalties and interest. The New York State Attorney General’s Office also recommended a sentence of incarceration. Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 22.

The plea follows an indictment secured in Kings County Supreme Court, charging Calderon-Melendez with 11 felony counts: two counts of Repeated Failure to File Personal Income and Earnings Taxes; two counts of Criminal Tax Fraud in the Third Degree; one count of Criminal Tax Fraud in the Fourth Degree; four counts of Tampering with Physical Evidence; one count of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree; and one count of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

“While earning a six-figure salary funded largely by taxpayer dollars, the defendant robbed the state of New York of much-needed revenue when he failed to pay his taxes for six years in a row,” state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said. “Today’s plea sends the message that tax cheats and those who violate the public trust will be held accountable.”

Last year, the state Department of Education revoked Williamsburg Charter’s charter because it did not move fast enough to separate itself from Calderone-Melendez, who had been arrested in April. However, Kings County Supreme Court Justice Ellen Spodek ruled that the department’s action was “riddled with inconsistencies and lacks a certain level of transparency.”

Testimonials From Some of Our Clients

“Dear Betsy,
I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert advice throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn’t even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent
Maria G;

Alexandra F.

Dear Betsy,

I just wanted to reach out and say thank you for CONSTANTLY being there for me throughout such a tumultuous time in my life. I have been battling severe harassment at my place of work for months now, and you have advised me through every single second of it. I would not have had the strength or confidence to battle such an evil administration without your help. You have answered my phone calls from 7AM through nearly midnight with any and all of my concerns. I have called you countless times to just vent, or even cry, and you have been there with open arms to pivot my negative anticipations into positive advocacy. You have gone above and beyond your line of duty to help me, and for that, I can never repay you. You have changed the outcome of my life, and led me to justice. More importantly, you have led me to happiness again, for which I am eternally grateful. As I am getting older, I am realizing that there are many bad people in this world, but you are TRULY one of the good ones. When one finds a great person in life with their true best interest at heart, they should hold onto that and take their word as bond. My last statement truly defines you, an expert in what you do, as well as a 24 hour support system. You are amazing Betsy, and my life would truly not be the same if you had not stepped into it!!!!!

Thank you again for EVERYTHING you have done for me. Your advisement and care will be carried in my heart for the rest of my life.

Alexandra F.

Tollyne D.

After 18 years of service, the general consensus as a union member is that you cannot trust people and you have to be extremely careful who you talk to. I was brought up being told that I should be sure that the person I am speaking to is knowledgeable and to be TRUSTED, and Betsy Combier is such a person. She consistently proves that she is trustworthy, very knowledgeable and caring, time and time again.

Tollyne D.

David P.

To whom this may concern,
I want to recommend Betsy Combier as the best person you could have in your corner. From the first day I met Betsy I felt secure. I had the misfortune of having to go through a 3020a hearing and with help of Ms. Combier my job was secure, I don’t know where I would be without Betsy’s help and support. She is still assisting me with my federal case. I could not recommend Betsy any higher, she is a person of her word, and her expertise is important and necessary for everyone without any problem.
David P.

Jason R.

I met Betsy Combier approximately about 5 years ago, as a result of a recommendation from a colleague. Since then she has been an advocate of mine ever since, and has worked above and beyond my expectation. Betsy fights against the wrongdoing of public education officials in New York City. Throughout the extremely difficult arbitration, Betsy fought for my unalienable rights, even though my former principal did everything in her power to tarnish my name and damage my career.
Betsy is not an attorney yet she has the experience and knowledge that is above and beyond that of an attorney and follows through on all issues. She is truly an angel from heaven above, and a quality public defender.

Laura B.

I was charged with a 3020A in October 2016 after receiving three developing ratings in a row. I called numerous law firms as well as my union. Most people who I talked to said that I should settle because I was fighting a losing battle. A lawyer told me that anyone that says you can win a 3020A is a liar. I heard about Betsy from a teacher placed in my building who was going through the 3020A process. I hired Betsy and one of the Attorneys who works with her and her company, and won my case! Betsy saved my job and saved my life because she was emotionally supportive at a time when I needed it the most. Betsy goes above and beyond for her clients. She is readily available day and night for her clients. Betsy’s knowledge of education law is exceptional and she was a great help to my attorney. Betsy is relentless and fights hard for her clients.

ADVOCATZ

Contact me with a concern or issue

I assist anyone who needs help, so email me your problem to start the ball rolling! I am a teacher/parent advocate, and I am the editor/writer for this blog and the website parentadvocates.org. I also write about court corruption on my blog "NYC Court Corruption". I am interested in random injustice and the criminalizing of innocent people. If you want to chat you may email me at: betsy.combier@gmail.com and I'm on twitter and have a facebook page too. I'm not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

If you want to talk with me about your 3020-a charges, I consult and go over your case without charge. No fee.

And, in response to the lies of certain individuals who resent my work, the truth is that all conversations are confidential and I do not tape secretly.

Betsy Combier

My Thoughts and Raison d'etre

This blog is about the denial of Constitutional rights by the Mayor, the New York City Department of Education and the Chancellor, New York State and Federal Courts, New York State legislature, and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), as well as PACs and all parties participating in the business of public school education in New York City, to harm and in neglect of parents, children, and staff of public schools in the five boroughs. These thoughts are not simply mindless conclusions reached out of thin air, but a result of 14 years of research into the NYC DOE and the Courts as a reporter and paralegal.
I am an advocate of Unions and union rights, public schools and charters, and learning online as well as outside of the classroom. I cannot and do not support anyone, whether they be union management, government, private members of the political or legal system, or simply retired teachers with an agenda, if he or she tramples, discards, or rebuffs anyone's individual civil rights. As a reporter, journalist, advocate, researcher and paralegal, I have created this blog to inform the public about my experience working for the UFT and being the parent of four daughters who went through the public school system in NYC, as well as examine issues that flow from the massive denial of due process rights that I saw and have documented. The two most important points you should remember: first, everyone at the New York City Board/Department of Education and all Union bigs are motivated by power and money, and looking good. If anyone dares to blow the whistle on these racketeers, retaliation follows, so be a strategist; second, I am not an Attorney and nothing I write or say is legal advice, simply my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Betsy Combier, Editor
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com
New York Court Corruption
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Parentadvocates.org
http://www.parentadvocates.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/betsy.combier
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BetsyCombier
The NYC Public Voice
http://nycpublicvoice.blogspot.com/betsy.combier@gmail.com
Lawline July 27, 2011
http://www.teachem.com/lawlinetv/learn/lawline-tv-teachers-unions-the-last-in-first-out-rule/

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary Sch...

Google + Rubber Room Community

FAITH

When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly. Patrick Overton

Truth Seeks Light - Lies Seek Shadows

sayin like it is

Actions Have Consequences

Writing as Music

Rubber Room teachers wish me a happy birthday (2006)

"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

- Aristotle

Important Numbers

Amy Arundel (ATR Point Person) 212-510-6468

UFT www.uft.org

OPI (Problem Code) 1-718-935-2666

UFT Certification Services 1-212-420-1830

Teachers REtirement System 1-888-869-2877

Mandated Reporters 1-800-635-1522

Staten Island UFT 1-718-605-1400

Brooklyn UFT 1-718-852-4900

Bronx UFT 1-718-379-6200

Manhattan UFT 1-212-598-6800

Queens UFT 1-718-275-4400

Rubber Room Satire

The Labor Movement

The Teaching Equation

We Can Work Out Our Differences

The E-Accountability Foundation

The E-Accountability Foundation brings you this blog which highlights issues that have or should be read by people interested in civil rights, and accountability. The E-Accountability Foundation is a 501(C)3 organization that holds people accountable for their actions online and, through the internet, seeks to bring justice to anyone who has been harmed without reason. We give the'A for Accountability' Awardto those who are willing to blow the whistle on unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status.

AddThis

Performance Management - Office of Labor Relations

From Betsy Combier

The NYC Office of Labor Relations, with the support of the UFT, has issued to principals a document called"Performance Management" on how to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Who is an "incompetent teacher"? Anyone the NYC Department of Education wants to remove from the system because he/she is too senior (makes too much money), is disabled (and therefore cannot be deemed factory-perfect) and/or is other impaired (is a whistleblower, cannot be intimidated, is ethnically challenged - not the 'right' race, etc).

Candace R. McLaren

Director, Office of Special Investigations (OSI)

Follow by Email

Polo Colon

"Rubber Room"

(1) a space where a worker subject to a disciplinary hearing or other administrative action waits and does no work; generally, a place or personal mind-set of isolation.(2) a literal reference to a padded cell, which is, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a room in a psychiatric hospital with padded walls to prevent violent patients from injuring themselves.”from Double-Tongued Dictionary http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rubber_room/

"Rubberization"

The word "rubberization" is a new word that is used to describe the process of assigning and paying people to sit and do nothing in a drab room away from their place of employment while their employers make up charges that allege sexual or corporal misconduct without any facts upon which to base the allegation on.

Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz

Theresa Europe, NYC BOE ATU Director

Robin Greenfield

Deputy Counsel to the NYC DOE

UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

UFT umbrella pals

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez

ATR CONNECT

Tenured Teachers who are found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetency at 3020-a but are not terminated, who have blown the whistle on the misconduct of politically favored NYC Department of Education employees, and/or who are simply disliked for any reason can suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool - employees without rights or voices, and without chapter leader union representation.

This new group of people are the "new" rubber roomers without representation at the UFT and denied the protection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, because basically they have been pushed out of their jobs unfairly and under color of law by Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief Executives of the Department of Education who call themselves "Chancellors", "Network Leaders", "Superintendents", etc., consistently without any facts or evidence to support the false claims.

A group of teachers who are, or were, made into ATRs, ATR Polo Colon, and I, Betsy Combier, an advocate for transparency and labor/employment rights, have joined together to expose the denial of due process, civil and human rights by chiefs of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE), certain arbitrators at 3020-a, leaders of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the "investigators" -agents who work for the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI), Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) - and the Attorneys who work for the New York United Teachers (NYSUT), and the New York Law Department (Corporation Counsel).

In order to protect the safety of those who join this group to promote an end to the "Rubberization" process described on this blog since 2007, names of those who tell their stories will, for now, remain anonymous if the person so desires, and Polo and I will be the gatekeepers. So if you are an ATR, or know a story involving an ATR or someone re-assigned or about to go into a 3020-a, please use the email address advocatz77@gmail.com and give us your contact information. We will protect your anonymity and hold onto your privacy.

Betsy Combier and Polo Colon, Editors

FAITH When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly.

Patrick Overton

We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Re-Assignment Overview by Betsy Combier

The New York City Board of Education decided in 2002 to rid the public school system of staff who interfered with their takeover and control. The criteria for a "good teacher" is now, more often than not, a "silent teacher", a person who never asks questions, is younger than 40, is making a salary below $50,000, does not care about kids and what they learn, or whether or not money (books, supplies, equipment, etc) is missing. When a teacher or staff member of a school dares to do the right thing and speaks out about wrong-doing - this person is often called a "whistleblower" or "flamethrower" - or, simply is not liked for any reason by the Principal/NYC personnel, suddenly he/she is accused of something by somebody ("given a label of "A", "B", "C", and so on) and whisked away to a drab room called a temporary re-assignment center or "rubber room". Members of the offices of the Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Special Investigations then start work on building a case against the person to justify their being thrown in prison, declared "unfit for duty", or, as Mr. Joel Klein has said, characterized as "guilty of sexual activities and corporal punishment" against the children of New York City.The stories of the people I have met who sit every day in the 8 rubber rooms of NYC prove to me that Mr. Klein is very wrong about his assessment, and this blog is created to prove it to you.

Puppy Snooze

US Department of Labor ELAWS

Aeri Pang, Gotcha Squad Attorney

Attorney Pang, red dress, now chief Attorney For New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

NYC EdStats You Can Use

$12.5 billion: Annual New York City Department of Education (DOE) budget (2002)

$21 billion: Annual New York City DOE budget (2009)
1,719: Number officials employed by the DOE central administration in June 2002

2,442: Number of officials employed by the central administration as of November 2008

2: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2004.

22: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2007.

5: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2003.

23: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2008.

944: Number of contracts approved by DOE in 2008, at a total cost of $1.9 billion.

20: Percentage of contracts that exceeded estimated cost by at least 25 percent.

$67.5 million: Annual budget of Project Arts, a decade-old program that was the sole source of dedicated funding for arts education. It was eliminated in 2007.

86: Percentage of principals who said in a 2008 poll that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools.

100,000: Number of seats DOE plans to provide for charter school students by 2012.

25,000: Number of seats DOE plans to build under 2010 to 2014 capital plan.

66,895: Number of K-3 school-children in classes of 25 or more during the 2008-09 school year.

15,440: Average number of seats per year built during the last six years of the Rudolph Giuliani administration.

10,895: Average number of seats per year built during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration.

27.2: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were Black.

14.1: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were Black.

53.3: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were white.

65.5: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were white.

76: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Latino students in 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) in 2003.

75: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade ELA in 2008.

77: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2003.

81: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2008.

54: Percentage of New York City public school parents who disapproved of Mayor Bloomberg’s handling of education, according to a March 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

Sources: New York City Council, New York City Comptroller’s Office, New York Daily News, New York Post, Eduwonkette, Quinnipiac Institute, Black Educator, Class Size Matters, New York City Schools Under Bloomberg and Klein.

Betsy Combier and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy

The New York City Whistle Award

NYC Whistlers, Winners of the NYC Whistle Award

...are those individuals in New York City who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. Whistlers ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up.

These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Betsy Combier

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon

Condon "qualified" for his current post after Bloomberg lowered standards; who will leash him?

A great teacher

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said: 'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job 'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletinboard, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps. 'You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly

Joel Klein's famous statement about rubber room teachers and staff

On November 27, 2006, temporarily re-assigned teacher (TRT) Polo Colon asked Joel Klein, the "pretend" Chancellor of the NYC public school system, if he had voted to terminate teachers at the secret Executive Session held just before the public meeting of the Panel For Educational Policy.Mr. Klein answered,"We did not vote to terminate you. We did vote to terminate a teacher in executive Session...in fact, we voted to terminate two teachers. It's perfectly consistent with the law.Many teachers have been charged with sexual activities and some are charged with corporal punishment...I have no interest in removing people who are qualified to teach, I can assure you, because I dont get any return...and in fact, I have complained publicly about how long this process drags out. But our first concern will always be and, as a former lawyer and somebody who clerked on the United States Supreme Court I will tell you, there is no violation of due process whatsoever..."- extracted from the audiotape of the PEP meeting bought by Betsy Combier after filing a FOIL request to the NYC BOE

Rally November 2008 at Tweed

November 26, 2007 Candelight Vigil

Thousands of teachers and school staff members rally at Tweed

A Review of Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools by Betsy Combier

Lydia Segal's book puts the NYC, Chicago, and California Departments of Education on notice....we who have read this book know more about how the system is not there for our kids than "you" want us to know. Lydia Segal's book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools changes the public school reform movement forever. We can no longer assume that more money allocated to our schools will "fix" the disaster that is our public school system.

Lydia Segal draws on her 10 years of undercover investigation and research in over five urban school districts, including the three largest, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and the two most decentralized, Houston and Edmonton, Canada, to provide, in her new book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools, the details of the corruption, theft, fraud, and patronage that has overrun our public school establishment for several decades. There is no question that anyone who is interested in school reform -this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first - must read this book. Ms. Segal's research and information on the education establishment's 'dark' side outrages the reader, and incites us to demand change. Her book therefore, is much more than a book, it is a call to action. We cannot be bystanders any longer to the systemic abuse she so vividly describes, and we will never be able to listen in the same way ever again to school Principals, Superintendents, school custodians or district board members as they request more money "to help the children."

The book's detailed reports on the corruption and crime in our public schools, supported by 52 pages of interview notes, references and specific examples, provide irrefutable evidence that the current failures of our nation's public schools are not due to the lack of money but the impossibility of getting the money to the children who need it and for whom the money is allocated in the first place. Recent statistics show that students of all ages are not learning what they need to know, schools are overcome with violence, teachers are demoralized, and yet billions of dollars are literally shovelled into the system every year. The New York City school system receives more than $16 billion every year; Los Angeles, $7 billion; and Chicago, $3.6 billion. Where does this money go? We have all asked this question as we have walked through school hallways dodging the paint falling off the walls and ceilings, watching our children sitting on broken chairs, using bathrooms without running water or toilet paper, and struggling to achieve their personal best without the services and resources they are supposed to have. Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools is the first book ever to systematically examine school waste and corruption and how to fight it. Ms. Segal, an undercover school investigator turned law professor, documents where the money goes, how waste and fraud embedded in the operation of large school bureaucracies siphon money from classrooms, distort educational priorities, block initiatives, and what we can do to bring badly-needed change. She describes in detail how only a small percentage of the money allocated to students in our public schools actually gets used by them due to corruption and waste, and how city school systems scoring lowest on standardized tests tend to have the biggest criminal records and most payroll padding. Coding problems, the procurement process, compartmentalization and opacity of information leave administrators with only two options: good corruption (which ultimately helps the kids) and bad corruption (which never helps anyone but the perpetrator and his/her allies and accomplices). Indeed, the system fights those who try the good corruption route.

Ms. Segal argues that the problem is not usually bad people, but a bad system that focuses on process at the expense of results. Decades of rules and regulations along with layers of top-down supervision make it so hard to do business with school systems that they encourage the very fraud and waste they were designed to curb. She tells us about how the "godfathers" and "godmothers" (the school board members) obtain jobs for their "pieces" in order to protect the systemic waste and fraud from being dismantled or exposed. Fortunately, she writes, there are good people involved in the corruption as well who must violate the rules in order to get their jobs done. Nonetheless, absurdities abound: school systems following rules to save every penny spend thousands of dollars hunting down checks as small as $25; it takes so long to pay vendors for their work that some have to bribe school officials to move their checks along; caring Principals who want to fix leaky toilets may have to pay workers under the table because submitting a work order through the central office could, and often does, take years. Meanwhile, those who pilfer from classrooms get away with it because the pyramidal structure of large districts makes schools inherently difficult to oversee. What makes Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools a must-read is not only the fascinating - and depressing - details of the systemic wrong-doing but also Ms. Segal's suggestions for reform, based on the proven track records of school systems across North America that have successfully reduced waste and fraud and have pushed more resources into schools.

The pathology of the corruption suggests the remedy, Ms. Segal says, which is decentralization of power into the schools and the hands of the Principals. Distilling what successful school systems have done, Segal advocates new forms of oversight that do not clog up school systems and recommends giving principals more discretion over their school budgets as well as holding them accountable for job performance. She argues for "autonomy in exchange for performance accountability" as part of a bold, far-reaching plan for reclaiming our schools. Her conclusion is logical and convincing. Everyone who reads this book will find his or her perception of public school education changed forever. We cannot accept any longer that a generation of children has been abused by a system that is so full of greed and corruption without screaming "stop!" and "Your game is up!"

Segal reveals how systemic waste and fraud siphon millions of dollars from urban classrooms and shows how money is lost in systems that focus on process rather than on results, as well as how regulations established to curb waste and fraud provide perverse incentives for new forms of both. Anyone who is interested in school reform--this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school, and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first--must read this book. --

Lydia G. Segal is Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.